I believe The GAC’s comments on standing are easily refuted.
There is nowhere in the UDRP policy that
requires the registration of a trademark or service mark.
6ter simply evidences Governmental &
IGO marks in the same way the registration of trademarks simply evidences the existence
of marks of the underlying goods and services.
In order to have their mark infringed an
IGO has to offer a service i.e. be known by that mark, this is sufficient
under UDRP.
The WIPO comments are far more troubling and in light of the seriousness of
the matter I intend to make a filing to the public comment proceeding.
Best regards,
Paul.
Phil,The following was in the GAC comments:"Working Group Recommendation #4 (jurisdictional immunity), which suggests a form of workaround, is incompatible with the position conveyed by the Legal Counsels of IGOs which was provided to the Working Group at its request “I do not recall ever seeing such a position in writing and do not recall one being given orally. Do you? If so can you please share it with me?Also, I find it odd that the author states that the GAC cannot form a consensus as to whether 6Ter satisfies the standing requirement of the UDRP (1st Element). I was unaware of this previously. Nevertheless their failure to reach consensus does not move me to alter our position.Thank you.From: <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org > on behalf of Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>
Date: Monday, March 13, 2017 at 6:08 PM
To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Public comment status for our Initial Report______________________________FYI, while the co-chairs have not made a final decision we may well hold a WG meeting the last week of March to start detailed review and discussion of the comments already filed by then.Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/Cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" --- Branch Rickey
Dear Working Group members,
Although we are not planning to go into a detailed review of all the public comments submitted to date at our ICANN58 Working Group session this Wednesday, you may wish to note that a number of comments have already come in. The most recent filing was from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), which was posted yesterday: https://forum.icann.org/lists/
comments-igo-ingo-crp-access- . The full list of comments and commenters so far can be viewed here: https://forum.icann.org/lists/initial-20jan17/ docxQl32KXGyH1.docx comments-igo-ingo-crp-access- .initial-20jan17/
Staff are compiling the comments as they come in into a tabular format, for easier review by the group. We will try to circulate an initial version of this tool as soon as we can.
Thanks and cheers
Mary and Steve
_________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/ listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
_______________________________________________
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp